[Saturday Feb. 17. 1776.]

Saturday Feb. 17. 1776. The Committee to whom the Letters from Generals Arnold, Wooster,
Schuyler and Lee were referred brought in their report, which was agreed to in the
several Resolutions detailed in page 67. and 68 of this Volume of the Journals.

Same day Resolved that Mr. J. Adams, Mr. Wythe and Mr. Sherman be a Committee to prepare
Instructions for the Committee appointed to go to Canada.1

Resolved that Congress will on Tuesday next resolve itself into a Committee of the
whole, to take into Consideration the Propriety of Opening the Ports &c.

This Measure of Opening the Ports, &c. laboured exceedingly, because it was considered
as a bold step to Independence. Indeed I urged it expressly with that View and as
connected with the Institutions of Government in all the States and a Declaration
of National Independence. The Party against me had Art and Influence as yet, { 365 } to evade, retard and delay every Motion that We made. Many Motions were made and
argued at great Length and with great Spirit on both Sides, which are not to be found
in the Journals. When Motions were made and debates ensued, in a Committee of the
whole house, no record of them was made by the Secretary, unless the Motion prevailed
and was reported to Congress and there adopted. This Arrangement was convenient for
the Party in Opposition to Us, who by this means evaded the Appearance on the Journals,
of any Subject they disliked.2

1. See Diary entry of Feb.? 1776 (3d under that date) and note; also the entries in JA's Autobiography, 9, 11, 12, and 20 March below. According to Richard Smith's Diary, 23 Feb., “J. Adams presented a Sett of
Instructions for [the commissioners going to Canada] which were recom[itte]d that
some Matter may be added” (Burnett, ed., Letters of Members, 1:361); but this action does not appear in the Journal. The text of these important
instructions, as adopted on 20 March after debate and amendment, is in JCC, 4:215–219.

2. JA frequently complained in his Autobiography (as historians have later) of the meagerness
of the record in the MS Journals of Congress, and consequently in the published Journals. But his charges that Secretary Thomson's omissions (or, as JA thought them, “suppressions”) sprang from his partiality for the anti-independence
party in Congress cannot be substantiated: Thomson simply confined the Journal record
to motions that “prevailed,” i.e. resolutions actually adopted. This practice (in
force until 2 Aug. 1777; see below) excluded the names of movers and seconders of
motions, the texts of all motions eventually negatived, all debates on and amendments
(as such) to motions and reports, all enumeration of votes, and all business done
in committees, including committees of the whole house—except committee reports or
recommendations that were ultimately adopted, and then always in the form agreed on by Congress, which was of course by no means always the form reported. It hardly needs to be
said that the Secretary's method bore precisely as hard on one faction in Congress
as it did on another. But it should be pointed out that Thomson's docketings on the
motions and committee reports that have been preserved are usually much more revealing
than the bare entries of action recorded in the Journal, the latter being considered
from the outset a record that would be made public.

From time to time members complained that the proceedings were too secret and that,
for instance, they had no way of making their dissents on measures they disapproved
known to their constituents; see especially Thomas Burke's Abstract of Debates, 27
Feb. 1777 (Burnett, ed., Letters of Members, 2:285), and Samuel Chase's motion of the same date, which, since it failed, was
not entered in the Journal (JCC, 7:164). But Thomson's narrow interpretation of his duties as secretary persisted
until 2 Aug. 1777, when Congress resolved “That all proceedings of Congress, and all
questions agitated and determined by Congress, be entered on the journal, and that
the yeas or nays of each member, if required by any State, be taken on every question
as stated and determined by the house”(same, 8:599).

Thomson's engaging justification of his practice will be found in recollections attributed
to him by an anonymous writer in 1827. It concludes: “what congress adopted, I committed
to writing; with what they rejected, I had nothing farther to do; and even this method
led to some squabbles with the members, who were desirous of having their speeches
and resolutions, however put to rest by the majority, still preserved upon the minutes”
(Amer. Quart. Rev., 1:31). Thomson's statement is printed in full in Burnett, ed., Letters of Members, 1:10, note.